Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36601207›Full record

ReviewCureus2022

Non-echo Planar Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in the Detection of Recurrent or Residual Cholesteatoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Studies.

Hosam Amoodi, Abdelelah Mofti, Nawaf H Fatani, Hatem Alhatem, Ahmed Zabidi, Mohammad Ibrahim

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. PROPELLER diffusion weighted imaging for diagnosis of cholesteatoma in comparison with surgical and histopathological results: emphasis on false positivity and false negativity.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Hosam AmoodiOtolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, SAU.
Abdelelah MoftiOtolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, SAU.
Nawaf H FataniOtorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, King Abdullah Medical City, Jeddah, SAU.
Hatem AlhatemOtolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal Hospital, Riyadh, SAU.
Ahmed ZabidiOtolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, SAU.
Mohammad IbrahimOtolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, SAU.
Soliman Fakeeh Hospital · SAImam Abdulrahman Al Faisal Hospital · SAJeddah University · SAKing Abdullah International Medical Research Center · SAKing Abdullah Medical City · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of patients with suspected recurrent cholesteatoma who underwent non-echo planar imaging (non-EPI) using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with surgery as the reference standard. We searched Medline, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane database for diagnostic test accuracy studies. The following prespecified subgroup analyses were performed: patient age, number of radiologists interpreting MRI, study design, and risk of bias. We used a bivariate model using a generalized linear mixed model to pool accuracies. Of the 460 records identified, 32 studies were included, of which 50% (16/32) were low risk of bias. The overall pooled sensitivity was 92.2% (95% CI 87.3-95.3%), and specificity was 91.7% (85.2-95.5%). The positive likelihood ratio was 11.1 (4.5-17.8), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.09 (0.04-0.13). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 130.3 (20.5-240). Heterogeneity was moderate on visual inspection of the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve. Subgroup analyses showed prospective studies reporting higher accuracies (p=0.027), which were driven by higher specificity (prospective 93.1% (88.4-96.0%) versus retrospective 81.2% (81.0-81.4%)). There was no difference in subgroups comparing patient age (p=0.693), number of radiologists interpreting MRI (p=0.503), or risk of bias (p=0.074). No publication bias was detected (p=0.98). In conclusion, non-EPI is a highly sensitive and specific diagnostic test able to identify recurrent cholesteatomas of moderate to large sizes. This test can be considered a non-invasive alternative to second-look surgery.

Indexed as

cholesteatomadiagnostic accuracymeta-analysisnon-epirecurrentsecond-look surgery

Identifiers

PMID36601207
PMCPMC9805695
OpenAlexW4311119678

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.